PITTSBURGH – Fayette County has denied allegations that it discriminated against one of its employees, based on her disabilities and/or perceived disabilities, in the form of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Jennifer Thomas first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 4 versus Fayette County, of Uniontown.
“Plaintiff has been employed by the defendant from in or about August 2014. Plaintiff currently holds the position of Assessor II. In or about February 2021, plaintiff began seeking mental health treatment and was diagnosed with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As a result of the aforementioned diagnosis, plaintiff struggles with executive functioning, time management skills, organizational skills and maintaining focus. Moreover, as a result of the aforementioned conditions, plaintiff is often late for scheduled appointments by five to ten minutes,” the suit stated.
“Nonetheless, plaintiff can perform, and has performed, all of the essential functions of her position with the defendant with little accommodation. In or about the beginning of 2022, plaintiff was assigned a new supervisor, Jared Billy. At that time, Mr. Billy began over-scrutinizing the plaintiff’s work. Mr. Billy has also stated that the plaintiff was not allowed to ask another supervisor, Sarah Byers, any questions regarding work and to direct all questions to him, even if Ms. Byers was directly involved in the subject of the question. Mr. Billy’s conduct in this regard exacerbated the plaintiff’s above-described medical conditions.”
The suit continued that in or about May 2022, during a meeting, the plaintiff complained to her second-level supervisor, Jim Hercik, regarding Mr. Billy’s conduct, and asked if she was doing anything wrong – but Mr. Hercik responded that the plaintiff was not doing anything wrong.
At that time, Mr. Billy, who also participated in that meeting, stated that plaintiff was giving him “push-back” and left prior to the meeting’s conclusion. Then, on June 8, 2022, Mr. Billy again accused the plaintiff of giving him “push-back” and being “difficult” in response to a simple question. Later that day, the plaintiff complained to Mr. Hercik about Mr. Billy’s comments.
“At the end of that workday, Mr. Billy gave the plaintiff a directive which affected the plaintiff’s work schedule for the following day. When the plaintiff responded to Mr. Billy’s directive, he accused her of ‘sitting in the office all day.’ That statement was, and is, materially false, as the plaintiff’s job requires her to make regular field visits. The following day, plaintiff requested a meeting with Mr. Hercik, Mr. Billy, and her union representative. At that time, Mr. Hercik assured the plaintiff that she was doing nothing wrong and was performing the functions of her position. Nevertheless, Mr. Billy repeated that she was giving him ‘push-back’ and, then, proceeded to make false accusations regarding the plaintiff’s work. As the meeting ended, the plaintiff began to cry and walked to the restroom,” the suit said.
“Mr. Billy commented to the plaintiff’s union representative, ‘Watch your friend. She is going to get fired.’ Thereafter, Mr. Billy informed at least one of the plaintiff’s co-workers that no one should speak to the plaintiff. On or about June 27, 2022, defendant’s human resources department called the plaintiff and told her that she and Mr. Billy had to ‘figure it out.’ Mr. Billy’s conduct, as described herein, continued to exacerbated the plaintiff’s above-described medical conditions and caused the plaintiff great distress. Accordingly, on or about June 22, 2022, plaintiff formally requested an accommodation for a flexible start time, occasional breaks as needed, as well as for constructive feedback regarding the plaintiff’s work. At that time, defendant’s human resources department requested that the plaintiff’s physician complete documentation regarding an accommodation request. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff’s physician completed and returned all of the requisite documentation.”
As the County did not deny her accommodations and allowed the plaintiff to proceed with her duties, Thomas believed that the County had no issues with her requested accommodations.
“After the plaintiff requested her accommodations, as described above, Mr. Billy began making discriminatory comments about her accommodation to the plaintiff and to her co-workers. On several occasions, Mr. Billy remarked that the plaintiff had ‘special privileges’ and was being treated ‘special’ because of her accommodations. Moreover, he continued to create a hostile work environment. On or about Sept. 9, 2022, during an officer party for Ms. Byer’s last day in the office, Mr. Billy positioned his cell phone on a window seal in the office to record a video of the plaintiff and her co-workers, without their knowledge or consent. Later that day, two detectives for the defendant informed the plaintiff of the video,” the suit stated.
“Despite defendant’s knowledge of the video, as well as the plaintiff’s previous complaints regarding Mr. Billy’s conduct, he was not disciplined in any way. Thereafter, the plaintiff continued to complain to Mr. Hercik, as well as the defendant’s human resources department and commissioners, about Mr. Billy’s conduct, as described herein. In or about November 2022, plaintiff learned that Mr. Billy no longer allowed the plaintiff to attend appeal hearings, which had been one of the plaintiff’s job duties since she started working as an assessor for the defendant. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Mr. Billy did this to continue to intimidate and harass the plaintiff in retaliation for making previous complaints about him, as well as for requesting accommodations. Mr. Billy’s conduct continued to exacerbate the symptoms of the plaintiff’s disabilities, as described hereinbefore above, as well as caused the plaintiff to suffer increased anxiety, headaches and high blood pressure.”
This led to a Fayette County Commissioners meeting on Dec. 6, 2022, the suit added, where the plaintiff and several other employees were given an opportunity to address the aforementioned complaints regarding Mr. Billy’s conduct. At that meeting, the commissioners stated that the plaintiff and the other employees “were not permitted to speak and that the defendant would not take any action regarding Mr. Billy’s conduct.”
“Throughout the beginning of 2023, Mr. Billy’s discriminatory conduct and comments regarding my requested accommodations continued. On or about March 23, 2023, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had removed 15 hours of time worked from her applicable pay period. When the plaintiff inquired with the director of her unit about the removal of time, plaintiff was told that her request for accommodation had been denied and that the time removed was for when she was tardy. Prior to that time, plaintiff was not made aware that her request for an accommodation had been denied, and was not provided with any reason as to why her accommodation request had been denied. On or about April 17, 2023, plaintiff was written up for being 10 minutes late,” the suit said.
“On or about April 18, 2023, plaintiff was informed by the defendant’s human resources department that they were reviewing her accommodations paperwork that she had submitted over one year earlier, and that her request had not been approved or denied. Shortly thereafter, the defendant requested that her physician complete and return the same paperwork that was submitted nearly one year earlier. Nevertheless, the defendant continued to remove time from the plaintiff’s pay. Thereafter, the plaintiff was notified that the defendant denied her request for a reasonable accommodation. To date, plaintiff continues to experience retaliation and discrimination based on her disabilities and accommodations.”
The plaintiff asserted that her disabilities are the reason behind the alleged discrimination exhibited towards her in the workplace.
UPDATE
On Dec. 27, the County answered the complaint and denied its substantive allegations, before providing eight additional affirmative defenses.
“The plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to set forth an appropriate cause of action for which relief may be granted. Any employment decisions, which are at issue by way of the plaintiff’s amended complaint, constitutes the exercise of an employer's business judgment and did not include, as a factor, at any time, plaintiff’s disability as alleged. The plaintiff’s claims for violations of the ADA and PHRA are barred pursuant to the doctrine of absolute legislative immunity. The plaintiff’s claims for violations of the ADA and PHRA are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of qualified immunity,” the defenses said.
“This defendant hereby asserts any and all defenses under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act as though more fully set forth herein at length. This defendant hereby asserts the doctrine of official immunity as a complete or partial bar of the plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is wholly or partially barred by 11th Amendment immunity. The plaintiff’s claims are wholly or partially barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata.”
For counts of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• That the Court enter a judgment declaring the defendant’s actions to be unlawful and violative of both the ADA and PHRA;
• That the Court award the plaintiff back pay damages and other benefits lost due to the defendant’s unlawful conduct plus interest from the date of discrimination;
• That the Court award damages to the plaintiff to compensate her for damages resulting from her pain, suffering and inconvenience, as well as such other compensatory damages as permitted by law;
• That the Court award the plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal to the pecuniary losses sustained as a result of the defendants’ willful violation of PHRA;
• That the Court award the plaintiff punitive damages as a result of the defendant’s willful violation of the ADA;
• That the Court award the plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest from the date of the discrimination;
• That the Court award the plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of this action; and
• That the Court grant the plaintiff such additional relief as may be just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Joel S. Sansone, Massimo A. Terzigni and Elizabeth A. Tuttle of the Law Offices of Joel Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Robert J. Grimm of Walsh Barnes & Zumpella, in Wexford.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-01591
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com